[Signing] Burns Signs 8 Yr/$8 million Per

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Since 2009-2010, here are the defencemen who have put up 30 or more points in a season at age 36 or older:

Lidstrom
Streit
Markov
Niedermayer
Rafalski
Timmonen
Zidlicky
Chara
Gonchar
Boyle
Hamrlik
Campbell
Blake

13 guys. 8 guys put up more than 40 points at 36+. So in the NHL over the last 5 years we are averaging about 2-3 guys age 36 hitting 30 points, and 1.5 guys hitting 40 points.

Here's a list of top scoring D-men from last season that will be 36+ in the next 4-5 seasons:

Burns
Giordano
Byfuglien
Suter
Weber
Seabrook
Yandle
Keith
Goligoski
Green

Which of these guys do you think will still be hitting 30+ points in 4-5 years. Odds are it's only going to be 2-3 of them. The Burns contract carries ALOT of risk.

On a side note, great to have a 23 year old with 40 plus points the last few seasons. locked in for a while at a good caphit. Twice the player Burns was at the same age.
Wonder if the Wild would like that trade back.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

If his offense slips he'll only be elite instead of miles ahead of everybody. He's the closest thing to Ovechkin that anyone else in the league has imo.

I think this contract is fair value for both team and player.

So he's better than "elite"? What kind of ranking system do you have?

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by the2bears

So he's better than "elite"? What kind of ranking system do you have?

Super Elite > Elite

obviously...

[Calgary_81]

Not too sure who the GM was on Minnesota at the time (Fletcher?), but he got fleeced pretty hard.

Alberta's own Devon Stegouchi for Brent Burns.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

No... the posts about how bad of a deal that was made and acting as though we, the general public know better, is what's condescending.

I don't know if its a good deal. What I do know is there would be teams lining up to sign him to it.

Many GMs have embarked on blatantly obvious risks.

1) David Clarkson signing
2) Dave Bolland signing
3) Iyla Kovalchuk's rejected contract
4) Flames trading Gilmour
5) Oilers trading Gretzky, and then Messier
6) Oilers hiring Craig Mac as GM

The list can continue. There's obvious some risk to this and anyone who understands hockey and contracts even just a little bit can see that.

[Vinny01]

Horrible contract

[ozzy]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

I wonder what limited no trade means?
Any team but the Oilers?

[Huntingwhale]

I thought players could only sign 8 years deals if they were signing with the team that drafted them? Otherwise 7 years was the max?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Eight years for the team that has their rights, as long as it was before the trade deadline.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Horrible contract

He's an elite player right now, and its the price you pay in free agency to get a premiere player... you always have to sacrifice term and the age curve. At the same time, $8M is a great deal in today's terms, he's easily worth that. Its the balance that you take to contend now.

What I do like about it is that by loading it with bonuses and front loading it, the contract will be manageable when he really declines. Some team with loads of cap room will be ok taking the contract knowing that the true cost in terms of real dollars will be insignificant. SJ will have to trade some assets to offload it, but it wont stranglehold them if they are still competitive at that point in time.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

Some team with loads of cap room will be ok taking the contract knowing that the true cost in terms of real dollars will be insignificant.

In what world do you live in that $5,000,000.00 a year is insignificant?

San Jose could wait for a signing bonus to be paid out, or retain half the contract, but Burn's will be making 5M as a 39 and 40 year old. It's never going to be insignificant amount, especially with teams with loads of cap room (i.e. budget teams). I think you are correct in saying it's manageable, but are down playing the risk significantly.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by the2bears

So he's better than "elite"? What kind of ranking system do you have?

I guess the several "generational" players in the league are above elite. How there are more than one generational player in each generation involves logic beyond my abilities.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

In what world do you live in that $5,000,000.00 a year is insignificant?

San Jose could wait for a signing bonus to be paid out, or retain half the contract, but Burn's will be making 5M as a 39 and 40 year old. It's never going to be insignificant amount, especially with teams with loads of cap room (i.e. budget teams). I think you are correct in saying it's manageable, but are down playing the risk significantly.

A world in which a team can retain up to 50% of a contract, and in a world where inflation exists?

A 5M salary in future terms can be easily turned into something that is more like $2M with the way this contract is structured.

Lets not act like SJ has painted themselves into an inescapable corner here. There are rules in place, and they have given themselves some trade flexibility.

There are many contracts out there that aren't front loaded, and have inescapable movement terms. This isn't that.

When negotiating a contract with an elite player with free agency looming, the terms are never going to be perfect. Although SJ gave a cap hit consistent with FMV, they ended up sacrificing term for some future flexibility. I see it as a fair compromise for both parties. The alternative is letting him walk, which is arguably the better long term move, it comes with a significant sacrifice of closing the near term window (which is kinda important).

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

He's an elite player right now, and its the price you pay in free agency to get a premiere player... you always have to sacrifice term and the age curve. At the same time, $8M is a great deal in today's terms, he's easily worth that. Its the balance that you take to contend now.

What I do like about it is that by loading it with bonuses and front loading it, the contract will be manageable when he really declines. Some team with loads of cap room will be ok taking the contract knowing that the true cost in terms of real dollars will be insignificant. SJ will have to trade some assets to offload it, but it wont stranglehold them if they are still competitive at that point in time.

He is 32 turning 33 when the deal kicks in. A lot of posters rag on the Giordano contract but it is 2 years and $1.25M per less. To be honest Gio and Burns are very comparable players over the past few seasons. Burns has been better but not 23.5M better which is the difference in their contracts.

This will be a horrible deal for 4-5 of the 8 years

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

He is 32 turning 33 when the deal kicks in. A lot of posters rag on the Giordano contract but it is 2 years and $1.25M per less. To be honest Gio and Burns are very comparable players over the past few seasons. Burns has been better but not 23.5M better which is the difference in their contracts.

This will be a horrible deal for 4-5 of the 8 years

I think Gio will age better as well.

6'5 monster with 200 NHL games more than Gio and I guarantee he isn't in as good of shape.

He'll be a PP specialist by 36

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

A world in which a team can retain up to 50% of a contract, and in a world where inflation exists?

Ah yes, by the year 2023, $5M dollars will probably not quite be enough to buy a Big Mac...

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

A 5M salary in future terms can be easily turned into something that is more like $2M with the way this contract is structured.

If the Sharks are happy with Burns until he is 39, then it's fine. The issue is that they may not be once he starts to decline.

If they are trying to offload him when he is 37 or 38, there is absolutely no "easy" way to turn that into an insignificant amount. He'll be owed $16,500,000.00. That's actual money, a lot of it. Like 16.5 million dollars worth of it.

If he declines to the point that he needs to be offloaded by the 2022 season, as he is 37+, the Shark could retain salary. It's true, they could retain half his remaining contract and wait until his 3.5M bonus is paid out. That's potentially 10M of the 16.5M still left on his contract. That's 10M to pay a person not on your team. Again, that's millions of dollars. It also comes with 4M of dead-space in cap.

Only in your fantasy world is throwing $10,000,000.00 away for nothing, and potentially giving up other assets, going to be considered "easily" doable.

It's a risky contract. It might be worth the risk. I'm not suggesting it's not. I'm arguing against the notion that a 37 year old with eight figures still owed could be easily moved or the amount left is insignificant by that time. It's not.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Ah yes, by the year 2023, $5M dollars will probably not quite be enough to buy a Big Mac...



If the Sharks are happy with Burns until he is 39, then it's fine. The issue is that they may not be once he starts to decline.

If they are trying to offload him when he is 37 or 38, there is absolutely no "easy" way to turn that into an insignificant amount. He'll be owed $16,500,000.00. That's actual money, a lot of it. Like 16.5 million dollars worth of it.

If he declines to the point that he needs to be offloaded by the 2022 season, as he is 37+, the Shark could retain salary. It's true, they could retain half his remaining contract and wait until his 3.5M bonus is paid out. That's potentially 10M of the 16.5M still left on his contract. That's 10M to pay a person not on your team. Again, that's millions of dollars. It also comes with 4M of dead-space in cap.

Only in your fantasy world is throwing $10,000,000.00 away for nothing, and potentially giving up other assets, going to be considered "easily" doable.

It's a risky contract. It might be worth the risk. I'm not suggesting it's not. I'm arguing against the notion that a 37 year old with eight figures still owed could be easily moved or the amount left is insignificant by that time. It's not.

Firstly, check the condescending attitude at the door that your brought right into the conversation. I'm here to talk hockey, and have no particular issue with you.

Secondly, there is of course inherent risk when signing any player for 8 years at a high cap hit. And I agree there is an enhanced risk of decline early in the contract when you sign a player starting at age 32. This isn't discovering plutonium. Its the risk that every team takes by extending highly sought after players.

Thirdly, when I use the word "easily" I am speaking in relative to other players being extended. SJ has given themselves a viable out. 10M in real money with a cap hit in excess of that could be a very manageable piece to trade to a team trying to approach the cap floor without aspirations for playoffs during a rebuild.

With a cap floor system, the minimum threshold would actually allow a team to save economic dollars in having contracts that have a larger cap hit than real money. Paired with a first rounder and some other assets would make a trade such as that very possible. Compared to deals with no-movement clauses and backloaded/even weighted contracts, this deal offers flexibility when Burns' performance suffers.

Lastly, in today's terms, relative to his production, $8M is a very good cap hit for San Jose. In the current NHL, there are many $4-6M players that don't provide half of the value that Burns currently provides. If he approximates his current production for a few years, he will be providing surplus value while the team is competitive and can ease the pain suffered at the end of the contract. If Burns helps the team be a serious contender for 4-6 years of the contract, and the team has to bite the bullet to sacrifice some assets to get out from under it in the last few years, it will be a large success.

It is expensive to get known production, and I think elongating the term keeps the current cap hit very manageable to field a contending team,and have minimized the risk in structuring the way they have gives them some outs. I'm sorry if you don't feel the same, but the alternative would to let him walk, and leaves the team with a massive void and would potentially end their current window. That's not an appealing alternative either.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

Thirdly, when I use the word "easily" I am speaking in relative to other players being extended. SJ has given themselves a viable out. 10M in real money with a cap hit in excess of that could be a very manageable piece to trade to a team trying to approach the cap floor without aspirations for playoffs during a rebuild.

Relative to what? How many 37+ year old players with 16M+ left on their contracts have been moved since...ever? There is no relative here. It's not a Kiprusoff or Pronger or Savard or Weber contract where the last year(s) see him making nothing. He'll be making a lot of actual money, unlike previous back-loaded contracts. We're talking millions of dollars. Assuming there is a decline enough to warrant San Jose being forced to move him, they can only hope for a Clarksson-Horton situation opening up for themselves.

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

With a cap floor system, the minimum threshold would actually allow a team to save economic dollars in having contracts that have a larger cap hit than real money. Paired with a first rounder and some other assets would make a trade such as that very possible. Compared to deals with no-movement clauses and backloaded/even weighted contracts, this deal offers flexibility when Burns' performance suffers.

Again, this is all fine and dandy if San Jose is looking at offloading a 39 year old Burns. If in 5 and a half years, as a 37 year old turning 38, he's declined enought o be an anchor, these economic budget teams only really getting a favourable economic situation if San Jose does keep half the contract...that comes with 4M in dead space for 3 years and 10M in dead salary. And even these economic teams doing whatever they can to stay above the floor (i.e. Phoenix...) haven't shown any interest in wasting 6M+ over three years.

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

Lastly, in today's terms, relative to his production, $8M is a very good cap hit for San Jose. In the current NHL, there are many $4-6M players that don't provide half of the value that Burns currently provides. If he approximates his current production for a few years, he will be providing surplus value while the team is competitive and can ease the pain suffered at the end of the contract.

I've never argued against this. His cap-hit is good for the time being. It's a "win-now contract and see where we are in 5 years and hopefully it doesn't completely screw us over" contract. It might be worth the risk, especially worth it if Burns doens't decline as most player do. The issue I've taken is your use of "easily" being moved if the Sharks are forced to do so or "insignificant" amount of money. It's just about how us fans seem to forget that these contracts are actual money. 16.5M when he's 37-40 is actually 16.5M actual dollars. It's not an insignificant amount regardless of how you frame it.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Relative to what? How many 37+ year old players with 16M+ left on their contracts have been moved since...ever? There is no relative here. It's not a Kiprusoff or Pronger or Savard or Weber contract where the last year(s) see him making nothing. He'll be making a lot of actual money, unlike previous back-loaded contracts. We're talking millions of dollars. Assuming there is a decline enough to warrant San Jose being forced to move him, they can only hope for a Clarksson-Horton situation opening up for themselves.

Firstly lets talk about the new rules. The reason it hasn't happened much before is because the front/back loading of contracts hasn't been following the same rule book as before. Comparable type of situation such as Parise and Suter were allowed to allocate the real dollars over a different period of time. However, Minnesota gave them a full NMC, making that point potentially invalid. They very well may have no way of getting out from those cap hits if the players want to stay there. They have no control over the situation.

Secondly, back to the cap retention, say at age 38 Burns is completely useless, but healthy. They can trade him and his remaining two years, and retain half the contract, and only ask another team to spend in real dollars, $2.5M a year. In 6 years time, I really, really don't think it is going to be as hard as you make it out to be to convince a team to eat some dead cap room, plus $5M in real money if they are going to get a decent asset back.

Thirdly, one of the larger risks of a player's age curve decline is the risk of injury. With the NHL rules in place for LTIR, and Burn's relatively solid health record, his contract is likely covered by insurance (mitigating the risk of having to spend real dollars and cap on an injured player).

The risk here is that Burns is simply not worth his $5M salary at that time while healthy. Even if he is a $2.5M player when healthy, a team with healthy cap room could easily take that player on, as that is all they would potentially have to pay him each year while getting some asset back.

What I'm getting at, is, there are options available for SJ to play with depending in the scenario.

I've never argued against this. His cap-hit is good for the time being.

You make this sound like a complete afterthought and secondary consideration. Burns' production is elite right now. Compare his cap hit to other elite players that have been renewing such as Kane and Toews... that's his current FMV. To me, it looks like SJ received a discount during his remaining prime years in exchange for giving him long term security and paying throughout his decline years. Perhaps they are going to be overpaying him multiple million dollars in future seasons, but lets not forget that in present day times, they are getting surplus value while they are trying to contend for a Stanley Cup. That is a major provision.

The issue I've taken is your use of "easily" being moved if the Sharks are forced to do so or "insignificant" amount of money

. [/QUOTE]

You seem really stuck on my original verbiage, and I'm admitting I could have worded that better. I'm explaining there are going to be some very realistic avenues to come to terms with the decline phase in this contract that will be likely outweighed by the near term benefits that Burns will offer. Is that a fair enough opinion to hold?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

You seem really stuck on my original verbiage, and I'm admitting I could have worded that better.

But it's not just original verbiage...you literally did it again in this reply.

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

Secondly, back to the cap retention, say at age 38 Burns is completely useless, but healthy. They can trade him and his remaining two years, and retain half the contract, and only ask another team to spend in real dollars, $2.5M a year.

Yes, only take on $2.5M a year. That's $5,000,000.00. And that's if Burns remains fine until his last 2 years. How many non-cap teams are throwing away 2.5M a year for players who are "completely useless" (in the situation you laid out).

I can't recall a single trade where a team took on salary, cap and term of that magnitude for assets without some other significant part of the deal (LTIR, bad contract swap, etc.).

Comparable type of situation such as Parise and Suter were allowed to allocate the real dollars over a different period of time. However, Minnesota gave them a full NMC, making that point potentially invalid.

According to CapFriendly, Burns limited no-trade clause is: "Player submits a 3 team trade list every year on July 1 starting in 2017 & in each year for the duration of the contract."

What's the chances those three teams are the Phoenix Coyotes and two other teams that have no shot at the Stanley Cup because they are looking to game the system to not have to spend to the floor?

Look Burns could just be a complete beast until he is 40. He could get injured tomorrow and be on the LTIR for the entirety of his contract. He could retire when he slows down. He could cross the border with some drugs. There's a lot of ways this doesn't come back to haunt the Sharks.

I just think you have a disconnect from real world economics when you start calling 16M+ insignificant and assuming that it would be easy to move a contract like his if he were to become useless on the back half. I can pretty much prove that's not the case by pointing out that Dennis Wideman is still on the Flames. If it was easy to move useless defenders making a lot of money with a sizable cap-hit as you are suggesting, you should probably let Treliving know.

I don't have an issue with the contract, it's pretty obvious what it is. High reward early on, huge risk later. Which is fine because that's the Sharks window pretty much. It makes sense from that point of view. I'm just saying that it won't be an easy contract to move if he does become useless at 37+.